Booker’s position is complex: A fetus isn’t a person at any stage of pregnancy, unless she’s deemed to be “wanted” at some point, in which case the government should provide her her with in-womb healthcare.*

*Care can be rescinded, and “child” status revoked, at any time prior to birth.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

A fetus isn’t a person at any stage of pregnancy, unless she’s deemed to be “wanted” at some point, in which case the government should provide her her with in-womb healthcare.*

This has long been the liberal definition of when “life” begins. If a pregnant woman is murdered: double homicide. But if that same woman had an abortion, it wouldn’t be called homicide at all.

Therefore, a fetus is only a baby if the mother wants a baby. Otherwise it’s just a clump of cells that can and will be discarded at her will. And naturally men don’t even factor into the discussion unless we’re talking about child support.

that’s the logic of abortion supporters: your mom decides whether or not you are a person. wtf? how can someone just decide that someone else isn’t a person? you can’t have it both ways. either everyone’s a person in the womb or no one is. it doesn’t make sense that some count as people and some do not. abortion supporter logic is just so confusing to me.

I was born @ 35 weeks. According to monsters like you-it’s just awesome if babies are aborted at 35 weeks.
Someday-God will deal with you and your ilk.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 28, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Well, yeah, it is awesome.
But your fantasy of God punishing me for my honest beliefs about the world doesn’t strike me as a loving and joyous reponse to other people’s opinions. The people who are so concerned about dehumanizing the fetus dehumanize their political opponents constantly.
Honestly, I don’t even see a point in your bringing up when you were born beyond you think it gives you the highly coveted status of victim. It doesn’t.

It’s a baby-not a fetus-you piece of garbage. Those that support infanticide-such as yourself-DESERVE to be dehumanized.

annoyinglittletwerp on August 28, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Your stance of recognizing the personhood of fetuses but not political opponents is more than a little insane. Not that I’m blaming you. It’s the insanity of the “pro-life” position. Maybe you should find another issue which is supported by better arguments.

Hmm. What are they carrying? Fetuses. What are fetuses? The unborn young of any viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult of their kind.

Of their kind. Woman. Homo sapiens. Human.

Viviparous — bringing forth live young that have developed in the body of their parent.

A young human — a baby.

Hmm.

I wonder what Thuja thinks about providing knives or guns to murderers — because, after all, they are going to murder anyway….

If every child ought to be a wanted child, then I can also see, using Thuja’s reasoning, that “postnatal abortion” is fine too.

That woman who gave birth in a bathroom in a bar and then dumped the baby into the toilet tank so she could continue to watch the game… just fine in Thuja’s mind. The kid wasn’t wanted. Just fine.

unclesmrgol on August 29, 2013 at 1:49 AM

Well, let’s just analyze what you have to say. You mention the Latin origin of the word “pregnant” as if its Latin origins have some relevance to an argument about morality. Maybe you should look up the etymology of “melancholy” and check its relevance to psychology. After that you free associate words until you come to the word “baby”. Free association is not an argument. It’s the polite way of saying babbling. But I am fairly sure that where you want to go is some sort of logical proof of your position. Of course, my contention is that no such argument is possible.

You then proceed to a non-sequitur about arming murderers. In terms of the question you ask, I would like know how does one know one is arming a murderer if you are a gun salesman? Unless you want to make a gun control argument that you shouldn’t sell guns at all since you can’t know for sure? As a supporter of the Second Amendment, I would reject that position.

You then proceed to a case of infanticide, which isn’t relevant to the “child in the womb” we were discussing. I do have to say that I truly don’t want a woman to raise a child who would commit infanticide to watch a game. I think the response of the criminal justice system to such a woman should be to sterilize her to make sure she never gets pregnant again. Presumably, you would want her to go to prison or be executed for murder.

You then proceed to a case of infanticide, which isn’t relevant to the “child in the womb” we were discussing. I do have to say that I truly don’t want a woman to raise a child who would commit infanticide to watch a game. I think the response of the criminal justice system to such a woman should be to sterilize her to make sure she never gets pregnant again. Presumably, you would want her to go to prison or be executed for murder.

thuja on August 29, 2013 at 9:17 AM

It’s an interesting leap of logic you display to say that a discussion of infanticide is not relevant to a discussion of the child in the womb, given that abortion is infanticide. Any woman who would have an abortion is, by definition, a woman “who would commit infanticide.” Are you suggesting that any woman who would have an abortion should then be forcibly sterilized by the state so that she can never have other children? That would be the only logically consistent position to take.